Heidegger

In a message dated 29/03/2008 15:55:30 GMT Standard Time,
michael at sandwich-de-sign.co.uk writes:

Jud is sure concerning Joe’s slippery gameplaying:

It is obvious that Joe is running rings around skinhead Heideggerienism

Well, it seems to me, a mere musician, that neither Anthony nor I (nor
MichaelE earlier) have been exemplifying or employing any kind of what you call
“Heideggerienism” [sic, surely] in our respective dealings with Joe, so it is
hard to see how he could be considered as “running rings around skinhead
Heideggerienism”. The point that all of us (including BobG) have been making in
attempting dialogue with Joe (in my view) Jud: Dialogue? Dialogue? One cannot
have a *dialogue* with a Heideggerian. It is like trying to have a dialogue
with a Jehovah’s Witness or a member of Al Quiada. Michael:

[is that ] he appears not to listen (philosophically) to others, but instead
continues to, er, continue in banging the same old drums no matter what the
response;

Jud:
You mean he responds to the Heideggerian metaphysical mantra and stock
pseudo-answers with more questions, and demands answers to the carefully avoided
questions from the massed ranks of the Freiburg Confusileers? It is the first
time that another trannie (he is a trannie - for only a trannie would take
the farce of the *ontological difference* seriously and incorporate it into
his schemata) has run rings around Dr Falacia and the Blessed St. Anthony
simultaneously cutting through the dust-clouds of dried saurkraut, aporia and
obfuscation.

It is a reificational domain I refuse to enter, for the baby language and
appalling grammar is not something I can stomach. Like the American
philosopher John Dewey, who frequently used metaphysics as a term of abuse. I view
metaphysics as he did - as a discipline that reified important functional
distinctions into ontological dualities and claimed to have access to a realm not
available to other men. [2] (Bernstein. 1961. p. 5.)

Michael:
Note, this is nothing to do with the actual views expressed (say, concerning
impossibly infinitely dense taxonomies/sets (of beings-as-a-whole), or the
difference between Heidegger and Descartes in thinking the world, etc),

Jud:
Heidegger never seriously *thought* the world. He accepted the giveness of
*Being* as a apriori - what kind of a half-baked philosophising is that?

Michael:
…. just a frustrating experience of talking to someone who appears to
virtually ignore what one says repeatedly and moreover claims repeatedly, e. g.,
that one, in mentioning a problem in Joe’s setups, that *his* problem (that one
has identified for discussion) is one’s problem and merely then repeats the
very critique one had made of his original assertions and setups…

Jud:
But that is EXACTLY what Heideggers do Michael. They just repeat their own
versions of the dreadful skinhead-level infant-speak of what-ness this and
this-ness that - if the English suffix *-ness* suddenly became unavailable,
their mouths would be *stopped with dust* and they would be forced to
re-consider the ontological craziness that states and conditions actually exist -
when any kid could tell you that only objects which exist in certain states and
conditions actually exist.

Michael:
He no more runs rings around anyone’s philosophical discourses than you do,
rather you both appear to live entirely in your own (different) rings,
orbiting your philosphical selves repetitively to the point of utter boredom for
others (eventually, after trying and trying to actually have a genuinely two-way
discussion).

Jud:
Are you sure you are not looking in the mirror as you switch into your
well-known ad hom mode? As for me - it is just as impossible to run verbal rings
around a *talker-in-tongues* as to machete a path into the neurological
hobo-camp that is the Heideggerian mind-set. Fanatics are not open to discourse -
for them it is a one-way street with Heidegger on point duty flagging on the
traffic to comport itself over a conceptual cliff.

regards

michaelP

ps: I must say, nonetheless, that I have enjoyed something of Joe’s input to
the list, but once a certain point is reached the enjoyment moves inexorably
to frustration, then boredom, then nothing.

Jud:
And that point is the point when it is realised that he is too clever for
you all and that the usual boring repetitive platitudes are of no avail in the
face of such a superior mind (handicapped as it still is with the
smegnum-stained encrustations of medievalist concepts of BE and Jesuitically
brainwashed Frechies who are unsure whether they really exist.)

Heisdegger walked away from *is* a beaten man - is it any surprise that mere
cult members can not do any better?

regards,

Jud

Posted on Saturday, March 29th, 2008 at 9:20 pm
comment | rss 2.0 | trackback